User talk:GTrang/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

GeoffreyT2000, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi GeoffreyT2000! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

User page

Dear GeoffreyT2000, I deleted your user page to protect your personal information. As you are a minor (in most countries) it is very important you protect your personal information. A useful guide for you to read would be WP:GFYA. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Mkdw^talk 21:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

February 2015

Hello, I'm Codename Lisa. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Windows Virtual PC, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Codename Lisa (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:First Days of Months 1900–1999

Template:First Days of Months 1900–1999 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Help requested

Hi GeoffreyT2000 - As you seem to be very knowledgeable about calendar templates, are you able to help with the problem I've flagged up here. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Apology about quick revert

I apologize for my quick revert of your edits at Dihedral group; I see there is a confusion between the use of n as the order of the group and as the index of the dihedral group that I missed. There are times when lack of an adequate explanatory edit summary leads to a "leave it like it was" response. I'll take the time over the next day or two to more carefully review the changes needed. —Quondum 19:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Google Toolbar and Spartan (web browser). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

regular star polygons

Hi, I restored the material on star polygons that you had cut from the regular polygon article. If you have an issue with this material, please explain it on the article talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Example after move

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  GILO   A&E⇑ 20:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

orphaned "strict initial object"

The article titled strict initial object is currently an orphan, i.e. no other articles link to it. If you know of others that should link to it, could you add the links? Michael Hardy (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:iGoogle for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  06:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pete L. Clark

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Pete L. Clark requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. George Barnick – Talk/Contribs 04:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Life equals Jesus

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Life equals Jesus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Microsoft Edge for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. The problem is that you're just placing information on the page without any additional context in relation to improving the article, or answering support questions (which are not supposed to be there in the first place). Talk pages are only for discussion of the article itself and not the subject. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Redirects to disambiguation pages.

I believe you may have misinterpreted the guidance regarding redirects to disambiguation pages. It is perfectly acceptable and useful for an ambiguous short form like Bill Cox to redirect to a disambiguation page like William Cox, which provides readers with likely solution for what "Bill Cox" means. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Main Page redirects

What is the purpose of Category:Main Page redirects? All redirects to the main page can be found at [1] without relying on categorization. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Main Page redirects

A tag has been placed on Category:Main Page redirects requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for four days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 2602:306:B8E0:82C0:4E3:3A70:64C7:7B4F (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"First Century" vs. "1st Century"

Hello. I see that you undid my moving of "1st Century" to "First Century". Why did you do that? The MOS says not to begin sentences with numerals, and the same principle should apply to titles, shouldn't it? The MOS also says that numbers under ten should be written as words. Do you have in mind a different rule? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Today tomorrow paradox

I am afraid I have deleted the article. Without any third-party references (see the policy of verifiability), the article appears to be about something you have personally invented. That said, I don't see how it is a paradox; it is based on a blatantly incorrect premise: "If you exist today, you will exist tomorrow; therefore, you are immortal" - you could as well say "you are immortal, therefore you are immortal". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Initial context-setting

Hello. You may be interested in some of my recent edits to articles that you edited recently.

If you write

In category theory,

or

In group theory,

that utterly fails to give the lay reader any hint that mathematics is what the article is about. "In geometry" or "In number theory" or "In algebra" or "In abstract algebra" or "In mathematical analysis" or "In calculus" or "In arithmetic" are terms that typical lay readers understand. "In category theory" is not. Nor "In topology". In some cases, there is no need for any such context-setting phrase because the title of the article already does it, for example Mathematical induction or Algebraic number or Algebra of permutations. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2063 (June 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2063 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Not interested

If I were administrator, I'd at least elevate my language without even trying (for e.g., I'd never tell any editor to "fuck off my Talk page" under any circumstances, as Drmies typically does and has become normalized behavior from admins on WP). I know how to be professional when I choose - I've spoken with company CEOs, given presentations to auditoriums consisting of hundreds of people, and to technically oriented audience. I know how to remain professional and divorce my personal ego when called upon to communicate or perform tasks. But I have no desire to administrate (I've had userbox "This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one" on my userpage since 25 July 2011), or be part of a corrupted and poorly thought-out governance structure in serious need of reform. When WP evolves its governace structure from the current shameless state to something more world-respectable, there probably won't be any admins as we know them today. The admin structure on WP has fostered an obvious culture similar to police in society, who socialize among themselves and are essentially an isolated subset from the larger society. One officer's questionable actions are not questioned or reported or interferred with by any other officer, as that would be tantamount to professional suicide. And police officers want to keep their jobs and not be estranged from their fellow officers. So it is on WP. Except these aren't paying "jobs" that pay their children's college educations; these are roles that feed their egos, until tired of it and they become "inactive admins". An admin's badge is more important to her or him than rescuing some innocent editor from being hamstrung. This is all human nature at its ugly side, let loose by a poory fathomed organizational methodology. IHTS (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

RfA nominations

Hi. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I do not think you are sufficiently aware of our adminship system and what it entails to be an admin to be nominating other users. It is generally not standard practice to go ahead and create RfA pages without first discussing with the candidate. A nominator should also do extensive research in order to be 99.9% certain that their candidate will pass. We already have mechanisms in place for recruiting admin candidates. Please read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate then WP:Advice for RfA candidates (all of it) to learn more. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Exceptional common year starting on Friday

The article Exceptional common year starting on Friday has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RJFJR (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Exceptional common year starting on Monday

The article Exceptional common year starting on Monday has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RJFJR (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Exceptional common year starting on Wednesday

The article Exceptional common year starting on Wednesday has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RJFJR (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Groupoid (disambiguation)

The article Groupoid (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

per WP:TWODABS no need for a disambiguation page for just two articles

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)